Yar, you be here: Bram Stoker's Dracula > Customer Reviews

Bram Stoker's Dracula Customer Reviews (73 - 75 of 84 Reviews)

Crap--read the book, people!
This film is so far off the book it can barely be called the same thing, and how they managed to incorporate the author's name in the title is beyond me. Keanu Reeves is laughable trying to mimic a posh British accent, and the high amount of sex thrown in at any slow point (none of which occurs in the story) is enough to put you off entirely. The performances are pablum, and even Anthony Hopkins, who has saved other movies in his time, could not pull this one out of the dung pile for me or anyone I know. All I can say is thank God Coppola did The Godfather, because without that, where would he be with films like this? There are much better Draculas out there, notably the original, silent German film Nosferatu, which actually FOLLOWS THE BOOK, a concept apparently lost on the makers of this film.

Somewhat negative, somewhat positive...
Dracula. The original version, not any of Anne Rice's fancy ones, nor any of John Carpenter's creepy ones. Just the original that started all of them- Bram Stoker's noble and ancient Dracula. Based on the famous novel of Stoker's, it tells of Dracula's sorrow of his bride that died long ago, and how he is determined to have another woman named Mina as his and only his- despite the fact she is loved by another man, her fiance, who is played by Keanu Reeves- and this man is far than willing to let her go. And Anthony Hopkins, played as Van Helsing, a pure madman in this film that gives the film a twist of humor, will assist Keanu in protecting Mina from the seductive grasp of Count Dracula (although indeed he's only cute when he's in his young mode!)
I'm highly critical of occult films, especially of the vampiric category- but this film actually met my personal satisfaction. Sure, parts of the film were sprinkled with artistic dust from Hollywood- but what book doesn't get this treatment when formed into a novel? The goal is just not to pour too much of the artistic dust on, and I, in my own opinion, think Hollywood did a pretty good job of this in Dracula. I do think all the nudity was ridiculous though; I mean, it makes the movie seem trashy, when truly it is a great and beautiful novel. I think they should have cut that stuff out, or at least have toned it down a bit.
But all in all, I did enjoy the film, and thought Gary Oldman was the absolute perfect vision of Dracula.

A VISUAL TREAT, A DRAMATIC LETDOWN
I am somewhat perplexed by all the wonderful reviews for this movie, especially since "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is nothing of the sort. For all that director Francis Ford Coppola made this film out to be a loyal adaptation of Stoker's classic, it radically alters the source novel and is no more faithful to the spirit of the book than it is the letter. Turning Dracula into a vampirized Romeo is a bad joke, and the love affair between the Count and the all-too-willing Mina turns Stoker's gothic nightmare inside-out. And where did this version of Van Helsing come from? Gone is Stoker's scholar-crusader, replaced by a scene-chewing clown who badly needs some rehab. More's the pity because Anthony Hopkins is a great actor, and indeed the all-star cast of Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, et al, could have really shone with better material. The film is justifiably praised for its outstanding cinematography and the special effects are likewise excellent, so that the picture is good eye-candy if nothing else--and indeed, there is nothing else. Naturally, Coppola exaggerates the story's sexual component, which is typical of a post-Hammer vampire film but adds nothing of value to the plot--unless you count all the bare-chested damsels in distress, none of whom seem to know how to keep their clothes on. To top it off, the ending is a hurried anti-climax which closes with Annie Lennox's "Love Song for a Vampire," a totally out of place pop song barely a notch above "Lust For a Vampire's" infamous "Strange Love." If only they had actually adapted the novel. They didn't, and the result is a visually appealing but otherwise frustrating and sometimes insulting movie. Sorry, but if you want to see Dracula brought to life your best bets are still the Max Schreck, Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee versions. This one just doesn't have the bite.

Previous Page

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Next Page